Let's chat about DSLR vs Point and Shoot - looking for some wisdom / experience

[Blackcrusader]

It depends on critter size and shot composition, but my point is that small-sensor cameras get a lot more DoF than large ones. On land this is typically viewed as a negative, as photographers want to control their depth of field, but underwater, it's a positive, as we almost always don't have enough DoF rather than too much.

Thanks for your reply.

Well I was lucky I got my TG6 with PT059 housing, 64GB card, two batteries, external battery charger, two tripods, cleaning gear, silicone grease, a hard case for the camera for US$500. Cost is also a factor for many.

 

[scubadada]

Thanks @Barmaglot a very useful, informative post, especially for those of us who have not kept up

I'm a very avid diver, but only a casual photographer. Mostly, I just want photos to share with family and friends and to post with trip reports. Prior to 2015, I went through 2 inexpensive point and shoots with brand housings, one Canon and one Olympus. My avatar was shot with the Canon in 2009. Eventually, I flooded both, ruining the cameras.

In 2015, I decided I would make a slightly larger investment. I bought the Canon G7X and a Nauticam housing with vacuum check. The one button white balance shortcut on the Canon was a deciding factor. I shoot all ambient light, in JPEG, and do essentially no processing. I get more than acceptable stills and, often, quite good video.

The Nauticam housing has been excellent. The vacuum check saved me from a flood when I got a fiber from the liveaboard camera table caught in the O-ring. After more than 6 years, many, many dives, and some rough use, one of the back cover hinge screws fell out on a dive in Bonaire. Of course, I continued to use the camera successfully for the remainder of the trip, with a safety pin in the hinge

So, here's where your dealer comes in. I have a home in SE FL and bought the camera and housing from Reef Photo & Video in Fort Lauderdale. It helped that I had dived with two of the associates many times in Boynton Beach and had met a third when she was the photo pro at Ocean Frontiers on Grand Cayman. They helped me immensely in making the initial purchase and then always answered my questions, that came up along the way. Now, they have fully serviced my Nauticam housing, and it is as good as new.

I'm a pretty good example of the right tool for the job. I was very fortunate to have bought the right tool for me and could not be happier. I wish everyone else the same good luck in their underwater photography.

 

[David Haas]

One correction I need to add to this post on page 4:

I would add that the comparison is P&S vs interchangeable lens cameras, as opposed to P&S and DSLRs. Canon/Nikon/SONY have all made the move to mirrorless, with DSLRs kind of yesterday's tech. That being said, there are great older DSLRs and they can be had for a steep discount on the resale market. But your older Canon EF mount glass aren't compatible with new and future Canon RF mount.

Not accurate as every Canon EF and EF-S lens can work on all Canon RF mount mirrorless cameras with Canon's $99.00 EF / EF-S to RF mount. 100% of all data and no loss of focal length etc.

This goes back to when Canon changed to the EF mount in 1987 (yikes!)

I was a Nikon shooter SLR in the film days and my first digital SLR, the D100 was a lowly 6.3 megapixel CCD sensor. In 2001 it cost me around $2,000 for the body but I could use my Nikon AF lenses.

A year later Canon debuted the Digital Rebel, also 6.3 MP but with a CMOS sensor and it was only $1,000.00

I switched and shot Canon DSLRS until 2015 until going to a 1" sensor compact to a Canon G7X II. Since then I've used the Canon G7X II and recently the wonderful Sony RX100 VII with astounding AF and other features like no screen (Viewfinder or LCD) black out in fast shooting.

If you understand the strengths and weaknesses of any piece of gear you can make great pictures with anything. I regularly shot my Canon's with the lowly 18-55mm IS kit lenses which were equal to 28-96mm or so. I did complete trips UW with one lens, maybe a wide angle in destinations like Cozumel.

I also shot tons of macro with the only Canon EF lens I ever bought, the Canon 60mm EF-S Macro. This was due to only ever owning a APS-C body and I never thought I didn't have enough capability to make photos I was happy with.

I also shoot with my iPhone above and below and bet most people unless they're pixel peeping at 100-200-300% on their computer couldn't tell what gear someone used to take a photo.

The only reason I'd invest in an ILC (interchangeable lens camera) these days would be for land shooting likely buying a Canon RP or R6 and one or two RF lenses. Most likely only one lens, Canon's RF 24-240mm which for me would be more than enough......

Just one old guy's UW imaging story

David Haas

A few blasts from the past

 

[tarponchik]

Long story short, in the years you've been away, the market has changed substantially. The basic P&S market is completely dead, taken over by phones. Premium compact cameras such as Canon G7 X series, Sony RX100 series, Panasonic LX10/LX100, etc, are still surviving, but they've got certain limitations that I will go over later in more detail. DSLRs have pretty much reached their pinnacle, and are gradually being taken over by mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.

TIf you want a reasonably compact system with good macro capability, consider Sony RX100 VII, see Backscatter review here: Sony RX100 VII Underwater Camera Review - Underwater Photography - Backscatter

I'd add Canon G1x Mk III here, or any other compact with a modern APS-C sensor and reasonably good optics.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

It comes down to what you want in image quality. When I look back at my photos from P&S cameras I would delete them in the camera today. I'm my worst critic. Some of the shots I delete today would have been saved as favorites a few years ago.

I began using a DSLR with the Nikon D700, followed by the D3X, and now the D850. I see the difference in my photos each time I upgrade.

 

[Searcaigh]

That really depends. From a side on shot yes but a length shot from the head, the body is blurred. TG6

I like the head on shot, the narrow depth of field enhances the shot as long as the rhinophores are in focus.

Similarly with fish, as long as the eyes are in focus the shot looks good.

 

[David Haas]

I don't think anyone's debating a huge megapixel full frame Nikon D850 and a 1" sensor compact camera are equal. Just that other factors including budget, physical size and end use of images should be considered.

When I shot DSLRs I did a few paying jobs, mostly swim techniques books. It paid well and I could justify the larger more expensive set up.

I also was lucky to travel to many destinations and shoot thousands of macro, medium fish shots, wide angle scenics and large critters. Now maybe I'm biased wanting to make travel and diving easier

As to Macro many astounding shots taken with the Olympus TG-6 and their incredible macro modes I'd say would stack up against a large percentage of high end system shots. I think there's a tendency to not want to admit more gear and $$$$ will automatically result in National Geographic shots

I was lucky in 1990 to spend 4 days with National Gographic photographer David Doubilet in West Palm Beach, FLA at a workshop. He said the most valuable thing Nat Geo gave him was time in the water.

Most hobby photographers simply don't get to dive enough and maximize the intricacies of any piece of gear. I'll confess to spending a huge amount of time in pools (I'm in Ohio) to prepare for trips and it's paid off over the years.

The bigger systems are sleek, sexy and super capable.

My take is many sport divers might be served better by a simpler smaller system especially as good as they've become.

To each his own!

David Haas

 

[David Haas]

Here's an example for discussion's sake.......

I replied to a thread on "another UW photo web site" asking about shooting Garden Eels........The examples others posted using all manner of gear weren't particularly great. Many posts talked more about how to edit monochromatic pictures shot too far away.

When I posted a reply including gear and shooting details nothing but crickets followed (!!!!!)

I'm not claiming these are the best garden eel shots out there only that I never got anywhere close to a shot worth keeping using my older (larger) systems.

There are lots of tricks built into compacts these days but it requires people to change and want to adapt past habits. I struggled, read up on features and Youtube has incredibly helpful videos. Not as many for UW but still......

Again to each his own!

David Haas

Shot details:

Philippines - Compact Canon G7X II using digital zoom, equivalent 160mm focal length. Fantasea housing, DUAL Inon S2000 strobes.

On standard scuba waiting patiently while ascending to safety stop depth.

I found the Canon G7X II 1.6X digital zoom is about the max I could use without too much image degradation.

Also, the Canon G7X II camera with 20.1 MP 1" sensor has no flash synch limitation. Synchronizes up to 1/2000 of a second in manual or S-TTL flash.

 

[nanohawk]

Bigger is not universally better. Larger sensors gather more light and resolve more detail, yes - but they also have less depth of field and come with shutter speed limitations, and even their positive points are not always good. Gathering more light is can be detriment when you're shooting with strobes, as it drives you to need more powerful strobes in order to overpower the blue or green-tinted natural sunlight in your shots. More detail is good... but how much detail do you need? Where are you outputting your images? Phone screen? Desktop/laptop screens? Televisions? Prints? In case of the latter, how large do you print? Below a certain output target, that usually being very large prints, the 50+ megapixel resolution of large sensor cameras is mostly wasted.

The often overlooked benefit to resolution is the ability to crop and still maintain good resolution. 600 dpi output will usually give you acceptable results for printing. However, most printers are capable of more than this and almost all printers play games with dithering to claim higher resolutions.

Generally speaking, the original value of higher resolution was the ability to print larger output. On a screen anything above 4K resolution is wasted. Most web stuff is 72dpi or 120dpi because file sizes matter.

Someone once said pictures happen in a camera, photos happen in the darkroom on the exposure unit. Cropping and adjustments are now done digitally, but it's almost as important as the original image. You can chop resolution off, but you can't create it if it wasn't there to begin with.

On the other hand, the shallow depth of field inherent to large sensors actively impairs image quality when shooting through domes, forcing you into very small apertures and associated compromises. Likewise for macro; where a TG-6 may have the whole nudibranch in focus, an EOS-5D will give you just the rhinophores, with the rest in blur. There is also the matter of shutters - most interchangeable lens use a focal plane curtain shutter, which limits their flash sync speed to something between 1/160s to 1/250s, with a few models going to 1/320s and a very select few reaching 1/500s (to the best of my knowledge, the only cameras to do this are Nikon D70 and Sony A1). On the other hand, fixed-lens cameras typically employ lens-plane leaf shutters, which allow flash sync all the way to 1/2000s or even 1/4000s without resorting to HSS. This is particularly important underwater when you're shooting into the sun.

It's also worth pointing out that the current camera market is a lot more complex than compact vs. DSLR. Historically, yes, it was true - the dividing line was that SLRs had dedicated phase-detection autofocus arrays, whereas compacts relied on contrast detection, which is a lot slower and less reliable. However, today, you have:

1. Fixed lens compacts, which, in turn, come in several categories:
   1. 1" or smaller sensor normal zoom cameras, such as Canon G7 X series and Sony RX100 series
   2. 1" or smaller sensor ultrazoom/bridge cameras, such as Sony RX10 series or Nikon Coolpix P series
   3. APS-C or four thirds zoom or prime lens cameras, such as Canon G1 X series, or Panasonic LX100 or Fujifilm X100V
   4. Full-frame fixed lens compacts, typically with a prime lens, such as Sony RX1R or Leica Q
2. Mirrorless cameras, which also come in several sensor sizes:
   1. Micro Four Thirds, primarily from Olympus (now OM Digital) and Panasonic
   2. APS-C, mostly from Sony and Fujifilm, but also from Canon (seemingly orphaned M mount) and Nikon (two models using their new Z mount)
   3. Full frame - that's where most of the innovation is happening right now, with Sony, Canon, Nikon and Panasonic releasing new models as fast as they can
   4. Medium format - largely the domain of Fujifilm's G mount cameras
3. DSLRs, which, having stagnated for a while now, still come in a range of sizes:
   1. APS-C (or DX in Nikon-speak) and minor variations with 1.4x or 1.6x crop instead of the standard 1.5x
   2. Full frame
   3. Medium format (mostly Pentax 645)

...and within each of those categories you have a range of different types of cameras, such as those targeting sports, or landscapes, or portraits, or whatever. The PDAF/CDAF divide is no longer there either, as in almost every category you can have some cameras that use one or the other, to varying degrees of effectiveness. Nikon generally has the best autofocus in SLRs, while Sony rules the roost in mirrorless, although Canon and Nikon are playing catch-up there. Olympus isn't bad, but Fujifilm is lagging, and Panasonic does not use PDAF at all, relying on what they call 'depth from defocus', which is basically a fancy name for slightly more intelligent CDAF, both in their M43 and full-frame cameras.

One of the most popular cameras among underwater photographers is the DX (APS-C) Nikon D500. Many prefer it to its bigger full-frame cousin, the D850, specifically because the bigger sensor brings too much baggage.

A note specific to the Canon G7 X series - these cameras use the same sensor as the Sony RX100 series (as in, Canon is buying sensors from Sony rather than making their own), but they do not incorporate Sony's hybrid AF (on-sensor PDAF) technology, relying on contrast detection only, which makes them significantly slower to focus. Moreover, while G7 X II had one-touch custom white balance, an immensely useful feature for video and, to a lesser extent, natural light photography, the G7 X III lost this capability - now it takes several button presses and navigating through menus.

You raise some excellent points and I agree with you on almost all of it. I think in my particular case I already owned several thousand dollars of Canon DSLR equipment. I did not want to re-invest in mirrorless.

This deep dive discussion has been very beneficial for me. Through the discussion and subsequent research I realized DSLR's are dead. Last week I did not know that Canon and Nikon had both killed their goto professional cameras. The 5D is dead, I forget what Nikon calls theirs. Both Nikon and Canon are great companies.

Mirrorless is the future, and for what I'm doing I don't need Mirrorless right now. So a solid P&S will do the trick. P&S isn't really the right label, but the compact cameras are very good and very capable.

My powershot G9 had slow focus, that was one of my gripes. I'll research the Olympus even though I'm biased at this point towards the Sony after having read so many reviews of it. The only time I flooded a camera was in Canon's housing that was very toy-like and not nearly as robust as Ikelite's. So I'm a little shy of manufacturer dive housings.

 

[Barmaglot]

I'd add Canon G1x Mk III here, or any other compact with a modern APS-C sensor and reasonably good optics.

This is second hand information, but from what I've been told, the G1X lens extends and retracts a lot while zooming, which makes wet lens attachment problematic.